Supreme Court sides with Playboy
Cable Restrictions Struck Down
Congressional Actions Infringed on 1st Amendment
May 22, 2000
In an action certain to have implications in future Internet court cases, the Supreme Court today ruled that a portion of the Communications Decency Act violated free-speech rights when it sought to overly restrict sex-oriented cable channels like Playboy Television. In a 5-4 decision the court said Congress went too far when it required cable TV systems to restrict sex-oriented networks to overnight hours unless they fully scramble their signal for nonsubscribers.
"If television broadcasts can expose children to the real risk of harmful exposure to indecent materials, even in their own home and without parental consent, there is a problem the government can address," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. "It must do so, however, in a way consistent with First Amendment principles.
"Here the government has not met the burden the First Amendment imposes," Kennedy said.
Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The justices upheld a lower court's conclusion that less restrictive alternatives are available to address the issue.
The government had argued that without the law, children whose parents did not subscribe to such channels would often be able to see and hear raunchy programming on poorly scrambled networks.
The problem occurs in as many as 39 million homes with 29 million children, a Justice Department lawyer told the court during arguments last November.
There are several types of technology for scrambling and unscrambling cable TV signals, and the effectiveness often depends on the weather, the quality of the equipment and its installation and maintenance. An increasing number of cable systems use digital technology, which can fully block a network signal.
The WIZARD has long believed that the Congress was merely pandering to a variety of conservative and religious special interest groups in passing the now largely dismantled Communications Decency Act. The ruling here by such staunch conservatives as Kennedy and Clarence Thomas will hopefully bring this issue into better focus. It is not the government's job to regulate thought. At the same time, reasonable efforts can be used to protect minors.
